Are Your Cell Phone and Laptop Bad for Your Health?

Here are just a couple of snippets of information which should help you
realise how and where you are being suckered into a false sense
of security regarding cell phone and wi fi safety:

"A year ago, Microwave News also reported that approximately one-half of
all studies looking into possible damage to DNA by communication-frequency
EM fields found no effect. But three-fourths of those negative studies
were industry- or military-funded; indeed, only 3 of 35 industry or
military papers found an effect, whereas 32 of 37 publicly funded studies
found effects."


"Magda Havas, professor of environmental and resource studies at Trent
University in Ontario submitted an analysis of radio-frequency effects
found in more than 50 human, animal, and cellular-level studies published
in scientific journals.
Havas has specialized in investigating the effects of both low- and
high-frequency EM radiation. She says most of the research in the field is
properly done, but that alone won't guarantee that all studies will give
similar results. "Natural variability in biological populations is the
norm," she said.
And, she says, informative research takes time and focus: "For example,
studies that consider all kinds of brain tumors in people who've only used
cell phones for, say, five years don't show an association. But those
studies that consider only tumors on the same side of the head where the
phone is held and include only people who've used a phone for ten years or
more give the same answer very consistently: there's an increased risk of
tumors." In other research, wireless frequencies have been associated with
higher rates of miscarriage, testicular cancer, and low sperm counts."

http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/58354/

"Lenny" <lenny@say.no.to.wifi> wrote in message
news:f8s1ja$hd3$1@news.datemas.de...
>
> Here are just a couple of snippets of information which should help you
> realise how and where you are being suckered into a false sense
> of security regarding cell phone and wi fi safety:
>
> "A year ago, Microwave News also reported that approximately one-half of
> all studies looking into possible damage to DNA by communication-frequency
> EM fields found no effect. But three-fourths of those negative studies
> were industry- or military-funded; indeed, only 3 of 35 industry or
> military papers found an effect, whereas 32 of 37 publicly funded studies
> found effects."
>
>
> "Magda Havas, professor of environmental and resource studies at Trent
> University in Ontario submitted an analysis of radio-frequency effects
> found in more than 50 human, animal, and cellular-level studies published
> in scientific journals.
> Havas has specialized in investigating the effects of both low- and
> high-frequency EM radiation. She says most of the research in the field is
> properly done, but that alone won't guarantee that all studies will give
> similar results. "Natural variability in biological populations is the
> norm," she said.
> And, she says, informative research takes time and focus: "For example,
> studies that consider all kinds of brain tumors in people who've only used
> cell phones for, say, five years don't show an association. But those
> studies that consider only tumors on the same side of the head where the
> phone is held and include only people who've used a phone for ten years or
> more give the same answer very consistently: there's an increased risk of
> tumors." In other research, wireless frequencies have been associated with
> higher rates of miscarriage, testicular cancer, and low sperm counts."
>
> http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/58354/


It's not wifi or mobiles you have to worry about it is the little green men
who are coming to get you.

Adam

Lenny wrote:

>

You still haven't cited your proof that you're involved in research, as you
claimed.

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 08:37:15 +0100, Lenny <lenny@say.no.to.wifi>
wrote:

>
>Here are just a couple of snippets

Snipping being the operative word.

>"A year ago, Microwave News also reported that approximately one-half of
>all studies looking into possible damage to DNA by communication-frequency
>EM fields found no effect. But three-fourths of those negative studies
>were industry- or military-funded; indeed, only 3 of 35 industry or
>military papers found an effect, whereas 32 of 37 publicly funded studies
>found effects."

You didn't mention the author of the article this quotation came from
- "Stan Cox, a plant breeder and writer in Salina, Kansas. His book
Sick Planet: Corporate Food and Medicine will be published by Pluto
Press in Spring 2008".

The review referred to is available at
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2006/9149/9149.pdf not surprisingly
it doesn't quite say what was quoted. For example it didn't look at
studies investigating possible damage to DNA - DNA isn't even
mentioned within the report.

It also had a number of limitations

"Our study has several limitations. We restricted our analysis to
human laboratory studies. This resulted in a more homogenous set of
studies, but may have reduced the statistical power to demonstrate or
exclude smaller associations. The WHO has identified the need for
further studies of this type to clarify the effects of radiofrequency
exposure on neuroendocrine, neurologic, and immune systems (Foster
and Repacholi 2004). We considered including epidemiologic studies
but found that practically all of them were publicly funded. The
study’s primary outcome— the reporting of statistically significant
associations—is a crude measure that ignores the size of reported
effects."

You also didn't for example include the bit that said

"Although we have shown an association between sponsorship and
results, it remains unclear which type of funding leads to the most
accurate estimates of the effects of radiofrequency radiation. For
example, if researchers with an environmentalist agenda are more
likely to be funded by public agencies or charities, then their bias
may result in an overestimation of effects. Interestingly, studies
with mixed funding were of the highest quality."

Perhaps the fact the recent Essex Study was mixed funding influenced
you?

You also missed out "We stress that our ability to control for
potential confounding factors may have been hampered by the
incomplete reporting of relevant study characteristics."

>"Magda Havas, professor of environmental and resource studies at Trent
>University in Ontario submitted an analysis of radio-frequency effects
>found in more than 50 human, animal, and cellular-level studies published
>in scientific journals.

Magda Havas is a botanist with a BSc in Ecology and an Associate
Professor (not Full Professor) at Trent University. She does not
appear to have published many scientific papers recently (and most in
the past have been within her primary field of botany and concerned
with acidification of lakes) but she is a regular contributor to
newspapers and speaker at the Toronto Dowsers Club. Her present
interest appears to be dirty electricity.

She has worked with an electrician, Graham-Stetzer who sells filters
supposedly eliminating this problem in buildings
http://www.stetzerelectric.com. Apparently fitting some of these
boxes altered blood sugar levels in diabetics, helped asthma
sufferers and allowed people with MS to walk again. Approximately 20
Graham-Stezter filters (apparently a capacitor in a box) would be
needed for an average home and they cost about $US30.00 each.

You can also buy a Graham-Stetzer Microsurge meter (Only US$100.00)
which plugs into the wall outlet and is claimed to measure the
“average magnitude of the changing voltage as a function of time
(dV/dt), which naturally emphasizes transients and other high
frequency phenomena that change rapidly with time. The measurements
of dV/dt read by the meter are defined as GS (Graham-Stetzer) units.
The G-S units are a measure of "harmful energy""

The British Columbia Centre for Disease Control evaluated the filter
and the results can be found via
http://www.bccdc.org/search.php?terms=stetzer&x=0&y=0

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

"Bob Wibble" <upyerbumspammers@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:46b1bbc9$0$1604$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
> You still haven't cited your proof that you're involved in research, as
> you claimed.

He is the experiment !

Adam

"Bob Wibble" <upyerbumspammers@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:46b1bbc9$0$1604$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
> You still haven't cited your proof that you're involved in research, as
> you claimed.
>

He is researching to see if internet scare stories cause damage to peoples
health.
He is currently seeding the scare stories so the health effects can be
induced and then evaluated.
At the end he will conclude that posters like Lenny are dangerous and should
be removed from the community.

lenny@say.no.to.wifi declared for all the world to hear...
> "A year ago, Microwave News also reported that approximately one-half of
> all studies looking into possible damage to DNA by communication-frequency
> EM fields found no effect. But three-fourths of those negative studies

Negative? Just because they did not suit your cause?

> were industry- or military-funded

So? Money s to come from somewhere.

> indeed, only 3 of 35 industry or
> military papers found an effect, whereas 32 of 37 publicly funded studies
> found effects."

Without context that statement is meaningless. What effects was each
individual study looking for, for example.

I expect the CTRL C and V on your keyboard may need replacing soon.
--
Regards
Jon